Print 126 comment(s) - last by FPP.. on Dec 3 at 6:22 PM

A glacial region in Norway  (Source: NRK)
Scandinavian nation reverses trend, mirrors results in Alaska, elsewhere.

After years of decline, glaciers in Norway are again growing, reports the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE). The actual magnitude of the growth, which appears to have begun over the last two years, has not yet been quantified, says NVE Senior Engineer Hallgeir Elvehøy.

The flow rate of many glaciers has also declined. Glacier flow ultimately acts to reduce accumulation, as the ice moves to lower, warmer elevations.

The original trend had been fairly rapid decline since the year 2000.  

The developments were originally reported by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK).

DailyTech has previously reported on the growth in Alaskan glaciers, reversing a 250-year trend of loss. Some glaciers in Canada, California, and New Zealand are also growing, as the result of both colder temperatures and increased snowfall.

Ed Josberger, a glaciologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, says the growth is "a bit of an anomaly", but not to be unexpected.

Despite the recent growth, most glaciers in the nation are still smaller than they were in 1982. However, Elvehøy says that the glaciers were even smaller during the 'Medieval Warm Period' of the Viking Era, prior to around the year 1350.

Not all Norwegian glaciers appear to be affected, most notably those in the Jotenheimen region of Southern Norway.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Hawkido on 12/1/2008 11:59:14 AM , Rating: 3
The previous post contained an idiotic statment that SHOULD NEVER be used in a scientific discussion!

there's ample consensus among scientists and politicians

Consensus has NO place in science. You are either CORRECT or INCORRECT, and Politicians are never allowed in science.

Look up all the Scientific consensuses in history, you will witness an astronomical failure rate. The only time Scientific Consensus is correct is after the Scientific Individual (Discoverer/Inventor) has prooven it to the rest of the world, and the scientific community has to accept it because it is true. All other cases of Scientific Consensus were adopted to thwart or obstruct discoveries or inventions that the Scientific Consensus does not want to allow.

The only benefit of Scientific Consensus is to prevent Bogus Science from reaching main stream. It is not an indication of proof but rather disproof, such as mechanisms used in court which cannot proove guilt but only innocence.

As such anyone who cites Scientific Consensus as proof of a subject, only cites consensus as there is no other evidence. Stating Consensus is an admission that there is no proof and none forthcomming. It is a political ploy to further an ajenda of obstruction or misdirection.

If you had discovered a scientific principal or law. You could proove it scientifically. If you cannot proove it scientifically, it should be nothing more than a theory or hypothesis, no action should be taken, other than further studies until proof can be made.

Anything further?

"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki